I'm surprised no one has chimed in on how the program is "processing" 40GB of instructions with only 800 MB/s * 10s of disk read.
If I had to hazard a guess, there's some kind of smart caching going on at the OS level, but that would entail the benchmark of "n close to 2^32" not being run correctly.
...Or that the CPU is smart enough to jump millions of instructions ahead.
If I had to hazard a guess, there's some kind of smart caching going on at the OS level, but that would entail the benchmark of "n close to 2^32" not being run correctly.
...Or that the CPU is smart enough to jump millions of instructions ahead.